The science that’s advancing fastest is whatever the newest one is.
It’s like the difference between a start-up that can increase revenues at hundreds of per cent a year vs. Google which creates more money every minute that the start-up does in a year but the percentage increase is far less.
Eh, that price decrease was probably due to some relatively simple optimization and scaling up from standard small-scale cell culture techniques. Standard lab techniques for growing cells require a lot of expensive labor and consumables. You can save a ton of money by replacing $1000/liter serum of an unborn calf with simpler media (soy broth with a bit of insulin?). Plus, you’re going to save a ton by growing the muscle cells in a big 100 L reactor tended by a $10/hour technician, instead of having a team of PhD scientists laboriously pipette a bunch of 10 mL flasks.
I’m sure there was some ingenuity involved, but I bet anyone used to working with biologic-production-scale cell cultures could figure out how to make cheapish vat meat.
That was my assumption, because prices haven’t declined much from 2015. So I assumed they just started using existing technologies to make the product cheaper.
They’re also still at the stage where just because we don’t have a use for the data today doesn’t mean we won’t find a use for it tomorrow.
Imagine we had really good well-calibrated worldwide ocean and air temperature data going back 200 years instead of just 75ish? But who knew in 1880 that that data would be important by 2000?
I admit I may be biased because this is my field but I’m going to second molecular genetic technology. I started working in it about 15 years ago just before they finished sequencing the human genome, and since then every two years or so there is a new technology that totally revolutionizes how investigations are done. I coauthored a book in 2004 about microarray technology which had a cover price of $149.00 and is retailing for $6.49 due to being woefully out of date.